When people define "truth" as merely an equivalent to "reality" or "that which is", they are only half correct...

Let's examine what truth really is, and where it originates, by starting with a simple example:

The equation 1+1=2 is true.

1.
Can you take the truth of the above statement and weigh it, or hold it
in your hand, or bury it underground? Of course not! And therefore,
truth is conceptual in nature; it is not a physical entity. Concepts originate from mind.

2.
When examining whether or not 1+1=2 is true, we use reasoning skills to
conclude that indeed it is valid. Thus, truth results from reasoning. Reasoning is a product of mind. (As we'll show later, reasoning also requires truth - because truth and logic go hand in hand.)

3.
The opposite of truth is a "falsehood", or lie. For example, 1+1=3 is a
falsehood (in standard arithmetic). We would not say that
lies exist without mind, so it is equally illogical to say that
truths exist without mind.

4. Truth is an identification
separating that which conforms with reality, from that which does not
conform with reality. The statement, "1 rock plus another rock equals 2
rocks," conforms with reality, while the statement, "1 rock plus
another equals 3," is a falsehood and therefore does not conform with reality. Identification originates from mind.

5. Likewise, truth is a description of that which conforms with reality, against that which does not. Descriptions originate from mind.

6. Likewise, truth is a statement about that which conforms with reality, against that which does not. Statements originate from mind.

It
is hard to imagine a completely mindless existence, but if you are able
to do so while taking into consideration the points above, it becomes
plain to see that truth is conceptual, and therefore cannot exist without mind. I.e., truth is a product of mind.

And the fact that truth is the product of mind
becomes a serious problem for Darwinian evolutionists, because their
materialistic worldview fails to offer a rational explanation for how "material brains" alone would enableabsolute truth...

If evolution were true, it would mean that human perception of "truth" is subject
to the electrochemical reactions in our brains responding to various
stimuli... One man's chemical reactions might indicate to him that "x"
is true, while another man's chemical reactions might convince him that
"y" is true - even when there is only one correct answer. But how would "correct answers" (ever) be determined in the absence of an absolute standard by which to measure truth from falsehood?

...In the same way we would fail to recognize that the number 9 is closer to 10 than the number 3 if there were no set
numerical order (i.e., if there were no number 10), mankind would not be able to recognize one "true"
answer from another "true" answer without a transcendent, absolute standard
of truth.

When faced with this problem, and in their attempt to
escape its implications, Darwinists will often attempt to define
"truth" as something that is part of reality itself, but independent from material brains. But
to no avail, they (still) have no absolute standard by which to
distinguish truth from falsehood. Reality cannot
serve as the standard, because it is our minds which process thoughts
and formulate conclusions about
reality - not the other way around... Can a pile of rocks tell you
whether 1+1=2 is true or false? Of course not! But as we covered above,
your mind can certainly make truth statements about the pile of rocks.

One
cannot cite the popular majority as the absolute standard either,
because it is entirely possible that an entire culture or society could
be wrong about something that they think they all know.

Nor
is experimental observation a viable standard. Even if
numerous conclusions from a set of experiments were consistent
and thought to be true, they could also be consistently false; consistent conclusions do not enable truth and therefore cannot be the standard of truth.

________________________________

Furthermore: To appeal to reality, majority, experiment, etc., requires a priori knowledge and awareness of truth itself! ...One cannot even begin to reason (about such things) without truth! For example, a replicated experiment showing reaction "x" does not tell our minds anything. Rather, by applying a priori truth, our minds are able to reason and ultimately conclude things about the experiment.

________________________________

So what does enable truth? ...By what absolute standard are we able to really know what we know?

...In
carefully considering this question along with the points presented, it
should become readily apparent that the source of absolute truth - truth being conceptual - must
be an absolute mind above all others!